Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Six of Crows in Books
Jan 9, 2018
Every so often a book will come along which will make you re-evaluate all the 5 star reviews you have given in the past. Six of Crows for me is that book. Set in Leigh Bardugo's "Grishaverse" it is the tale of an impossible heist where the rewards far outweigh the risk. Our main protagonist Kaz Brekker is fast becoming a legend in the bowels of the Barrel, the criminal underworld of Ketterdam. He is young, but a driven and ruthless trickster, with a team to match. They are tasked with breaching the heavily fortified Ice Court to rescue a scientist held hostage. It's a feat which has never been achieved, but with the promise of a reward that will take Kaz and his team out of the bottom of the Barrel it's risk he's willing to take, after all, just how many things could go wrong?
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Woman in the Window in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Anna has what's called Agoraphobia, meaning that she has anxiety leaving her house. Therefore, anything that needs to be done outside the house, she has done for her. Any medications she needs, groceries, etc., they are delivered to her house. She can't even bare to open a window because it would trigger her phobia. You learn there are different reasons for this kind of phobia.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Ross (3284 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
A half-decent film in its own right. A dreadful desperate attempt to link to Unbreakable at the end
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had watched over half of this film before someone mentioned to me it was part of the Unbreakable "trilogy". I had heard of Glass, and had noticed that McAvoy looked similar in the two films but hadn't realised they were linked (I guess I assumed he got bored of growing his hair back to then have to become Professor X again). I had wondered what the second film in the trilogy was. Unbeknownst to me, I was watching it.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
McAvoy plays Kevin, a man whose upbringing lead him to develop a number of (mostly) distinct personalities. These personalities allow his brain to compartmentalise and protect itself from certain aspects of life.
Kevin has decided to kidnap two girls (but for reasons he ends up getting three for the price of two). There is much less threat and horror in their imprisonment than in this type of scenario normally, which is to the film's credit. The girls are confused by the different personalities and how they interact with them and with each other. There are moments of charm, comedy, pantomime and some chilling moments in these scenes.
McAvoy does a good job of portraying these different personalities and they are mostly distinct. He is said to have 23 such personalities but I can only say I recognised 5 distinct ones, two of which were only a camp leg-crossing away from being the same.
Kevin is afraid of, but also excited about (depending on which personality has the spotlight) the possible coming of The Beast, a 24th personality that will be strong and powerful and hard for him to control.
Most of the film centres around either Kevin and his kidnappees or his therapist, which helps to describe his issues and show them at the same time.
The final section, The Beast's emergence and the eventual escape of the victims (I actually can't remember if either of the other 2 girls escaped) was so implausible and hammy. The supposed physical changes that each personality brings to Kevin's body are stretched to breaking point, and I think this just becomes stupid.
We then see where the girls had been kept all this time (a zoo) and again this just shouts out stupid. Suggesting a mentally ill janitor could drive a car with three unconscious schoolgirls into a closed zoo is just stupid.
The final scene made me so angry. Up to this point, there was no link whatsoever to Unbreakable. Fine, I thought. Keep them as separate films in their own right and then Glass can bring them together. But no. We see a news report of the kidnapping and Kevin's escape and disappearance playing out in a diner. One woman remarks that it sounded like that guy a few years ago who went to prison. She turns to Bruce Willis who responds "Mr Glass" (Samuel L Jackson's character from Unbreakable). It sounded absolutely nothing like "that guy". There was no similarity whatsoever in what had been described on TV and the story about a rich disabled man organising terrorist attacks. None whatsoever. This was such a clumsy, unnecessary attempt to sow the seeds of excitement for Glass. This has actually tainted the film for me, it would probably have gotten a 7 or an 8 if not for this lunacy.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Then She Was Gone in Books
Apr 27, 2019
Just Okay
I loved I Found You by Lisa Jewell, so when I read the synopsis of her other book, Then She Was Gone, it was a book I knew I had to read. While this book was still a good read, it wasn't great, and I was left feeling a little disappointed.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.
The plot for Then She Was Gone was interesting enough although I did predict the mystery of why Poppy looked like Ellie early on. There were a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming though of which I was thankful. I was constantly trying to figure out what Floyd's endgame was when it came to Laurel. I was also always hopeful that Ellie would return home safely. I thought the ending was done nicely. It tied up all loose ends and provided me with enough closure to be satisfied.
The one thing that bothered me, and I know it's a personal preference, was how the book was written in present tense aside from when Ellie and Noelle were telling their side of the story. It just really irks me when books are written this way. That really seemed to take away from the story for me.
The characters in Then She Was Gone were mostly believable. I had a hard time believing Noelle's side of things could actually happen for as long as they did when it came to Poppy. I also had a hard time believing Noelle could stay a virgin for so long. Poppy seemed very intelligent for her young years to not have been in some kind of advanced schooling. Poppy came across more of an adult than a child in every scene she was in. The author does attempt to explain why Poppy is the way she is, but I still found Poppy a bit unrealistic for a little girl. I liked Laurel, and I could only imagine her pain, but I felt like she was too uncaring toward her daughter Hanna and her son Jake. Maybe I'd have to be in Laurel's shoes to understand what it's like (although I pray I never am). It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Hanna's and Jake's point of view of things. Jake is hardly ever mentioned in the book, and there were many times I had to rack my brain to remember who Jake was whilst reading Then She Was Gone. It seems like Jake was put in as an afterthought to quickly tie up some loose ends. I enjoyed the character of Paul, Laurel's ex-husband. I admired his sunny disposition. Sara-Jade was another character I liked a lot although she wasn't in the book often enough. I liked Floyd and felt he was a well fleshed out character, but I was always wary when it came to him.
The pacing was done well enough. My interest never wavered, and I found myself needing to know what happened next to see if my predictions were correct. Then She Was Gone is definitely a page turner. I'll give it that.
Trigger warnings for Then She Was Gone include profanities, sexual situations (although not graphic), kidnapping, drinking alcohol, violence, death, murder, and miscarriages.
Overall, Then She Was Gone is just a decent read. The plot is interesting enough, and some of the characters are well written. For me, the present tense use really took away my enjoyment of the book. I would still recommend Then She Was Gone by Lisa Jewell to those aged 17+ especially to those who like thrillers.